Clause 1 - FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
Animal Health Bill
4:15 pm
Mrs Diana Organ (Forest of Dean, Labour)
The hon. Lady misjudges us. Those of us with foot and mouth in our constituencies were well aware of the stress on the farming community and on other areas of the rural economy. The tourism industry suffered great stress during the foot and mouth crisis.
The difference that I am trying to point out—perhaps not very well—is that the members of the farming community who owned commercial livestock in my area, almost overwhelmingly, co-operated with the contiguous cull, albeit with a heavy heart, difficulties and distress, because they wanted the disease eradicated. The individuals to whom my amendment relates wanted to object because the animals are not their livelihood; they are companions, or in a sanctuary, so they are in a slightly different category. I take on board the fact that the farming community's distress was tremendous.
I know of one woman with a pot-bellied pig whose husband suffered a heart attack during the period because of distress over the animal. Some of us might find it unbelievable that anyone could be so attached to a pet. I think that they were subject to such distress because of a mixture of attachment to a companion and the fact of an official saying, ``We are doing this in the interests of animal health and animal disease eradication.''
I want to mention the group at Oaklands Park, a Camphill Village Trust, a self-sufficient community of craftspeople, carers and people with learning disabilities, who made an objection. I shall discuss them later.
We are talking about a small number of animals. Each individual that I have mentioned took great precautions and serious biosecurity measures, and was willing to vaccinate to protect animals that would never leave their premises. When tests were carried out because people objected, none were found positive for foot and mouth disease. If the animals had tested positively, I am sure that their owners would have been prepared to have them slaughtered, because they cared so much for their animals that they would not have wanted them to suffer with the disease.
I want to say a little more about how the two factors—the statutory forest and the contiguous cull—meant that those people, by comparison, lost rights. Oaklands Park, which I have just mentioned, does not use its livestock for commercial purposes. It is self-sufficient and raises its own animals, for example for milk. It uses sheep for wool for weaving. The community took great care and virtually isolated itself for months. It wanted to vaccinate, and should be included here because the animals would never be used in the commercial sector. Those people objected, and I believe that in a democracy they had a right to do so. I am pleased to hear that, should such a dreadful thing occur in the district again, they will still have such a right.
It is important to mention that those people were all aware of the need to take biosecurity measures and that they would have accepted a local veterinarian risk assessment. That saved their animals in the end. Not all offered them up for slaughter; some stood out until the bitter end. With local veterinary interpretation and a risk assessment and evaluation, many were able to keep their animals. It was recognised that they were not a risk simply because they had been caught up in the contiguous cull of the whole Forest of Dean.
Those people live in the wider community of the Forest of Dean. They were aware that farmers around them were suffering dreadfully, and did not want to spread the disease and cause their neighbours distress or loss of livelihood. They have a commitment to their neighbours and felt it important to take every measure to keep their animals healthy and ensure that they were not passing the disease on to other animals.
We must also take on board the fact that we are talking about a small number of animals, not herds or flocks, but one or two: a pot-bellied sheep or a cow in a field.